"You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year? Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.

"You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

$800M/year is .1% of the annual military budget. But I'm sure there's no fat there to trim.

Marcus Aurelius:Sorry for ranting. I am becoming highly intolerant of these people.

That's fine, but your argument was the same one that the right used to argue that $70 billion (or whatever the actual number was) in revenue from increasing taxes on those making over $250k was insignificant in light of the $700 billion deficit, so why bother? It wasn't a very good argument then, and it's still not a good argument. The good argument is: because taking food out of the mouth of children is monstrous, especially if you are doing it so that you don't have to stop building tanks and aircraft that nobody wants.

nmrsnr:Marcus Aurelius: Sorry for ranting. I am becoming highly intolerant of these people.

That's fine, but your argument was the same one that the right used to argue that $70 billion (or whatever the actual number was) in revenue from increasing taxes on those making over $250k was insignificant in light of the $700 billion deficit, so why bother? It wasn't a very good argument then, and it's still not a good argument. The good argument is: because taking food out of the mouth of children is monstrous, especially if you are doing it so that you don't have to stop building tanks and aircraft that nobody wants.

So, unable to say the phrase "compassionate convervatism" with a straight face anymore, they've moved on to "life for people who have it hard should suck even more if we have any say over it." Very nice.

Ah yes, they have stumbled on onto the democrats master plan to enslave the population of poors by feeding them and robbing them of their dignity and their soul.//on the bright side it seems you have to be soul-less to vote republican so this may backfire

"It shows you, once you've got a program, you can never get rid of it and it's very difficult to cut.

Actually, it's very easy. You just cut funding to it, which is not what was done here. Here, they merely raised the states' copays to $20, which several states thought was a worthwhile expenditure to keep their citizenry from starvation.

do you want to be the party that goes up to the poor and says, 'Take that back'?" Kilmeade said.

Apparently, you do.

"You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve.

Yes, you are being demagogued. Because, yes, you are taking the food out of the mouths of children. Did you not catch Rand Paul's CPAC speech?

Face it Fox. Republicans looked at this change and thought it was worth it. Democrats (and probably a few state-level Republicans) looked at this change and thought spending the extra $20 to get more than that back as assistance to their citizens was worth it. If you have a problem with what you did, then maybe you shouldn't have done it.

"How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

Getting a handle on our debt is easy ... raise taxes until there is no more deficit and then just hold spending at that level until the debt is serviced. Unfortunately the right wing religious anti-tax nut jobs fight tooth and nail to prevent such an occurrence.

what_now:Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

Thing is, maybe we do need that thing, maybe we don't, but Congress spends buttloads of money on stuff THE MILITARY ITSELF SAYS THEY DON'T NEED. Apparently we can't even cut the stuff that the military doesn't even want.

what_now:How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

[www.independent.co.uk image 620x465]

That's not why we need it. We need it because, from your link:Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended its 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Now, the defense budget's line items do fall into three categories:Cannot be cutCan be cutShould be cut

I do agree with you that a very significant portion of it falls into the latter two categories, the USS Gerald R Ford is really not one of them.

Slaves2Darkness:"How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

Getting a handle on our debt is easy ... raise taxes until there is no more deficit and then just hold spending at that level until the debt is serviced. Unfortunately the right wing religious anti-tax nut jobs fight tooth and nail to prevent such an occurrence.

I especially enjoy the implicit assertion that we cannot get a handle on the debt unless we let poor people go hungry.

Marcus Aurelius:"You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year? Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.

"you can't ever win!"

Uhhh, well I guess that depends on exactly what game you were playing in the first place, though I'm really not sure I want to know the rules of the one that has "More poor people starving to death" as a victory condition